No smoking gun in Russia indictments. Again (commentary)

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. - The U.S. Justice Department on Friday announced the indictments of 12 Russian intelligence agents for hacking the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

There were blaring headlines on the internet and breaking-new alerts on the cable stations. TV saw fit to break into coverage of President Donald Trump's arrival at Buckingham Palace to visit Queen Elizabeth in order to carry Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's announcement of the indictments.

The charges grow out of Robert Mueller's continuing investigation of potential collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign in 2016.

But here's the key information: The indictments do not allege that the Trump campaign was involved in the hacking efforts. The indictments do not allege that any American was knowingly in contact with Russian intelligence agents.

Just as importantly, the indictments do not allege that any vote tallies were affected by the alleged hacking.

Could Russian agents have tried to influence the 2016 election? Sure. It's in their interest to mess with elections all over the world. By the way, in years past, it's been in America's interest to influence elections across the globe as well.

Did the Russians want to help Trump over Clinton? Possibly. But do the Russians really think that Trump is that much of an easier person to do business with than Hillary? The same Hillary whose life with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, has been so much about enriching the family? Reasonable minds can disagree.

So what are we left with? Nothing much. It almost seems like Mueller knows that he has to show some work product after all these months and months of investigation. So let's indict some Russian hackers. And announce it on garbage-day Friday, interrupting coverage of Trump's U.K. trip and just days before Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

We were in much the same place after Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and others in the Trump orbit got rung up by investigators. Close, but no cigar. Actually, not even all that close.

But let's remember where this all started: We've been talking about active, knowing collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. That's been the accusation. That's why Clinton lost to Trump in 2016, we've been told. It wasn't because of her lousy campaign or Trump's good one. It was because evil people cheated the system and stole the election from her.

But we're no closer to seeing any evidence of that than we were when this whole thing started. And with everything we know about Hillary's sloppy ways with her computer server and her emails, is it any surprise that somebody would be able to hack her? The DNC and the DCCC were similarly lax with cyber-security. You've probably got more robust firewalls on your email system at work.

Rosenstein said that the internet allows foreign adversaries to attack America in new and unexpected ways. These adversaries will use the technology available to confuse and divide us, he said.

If that's the case, isn't that a problem for the internet service providers to deal with? Isn't that a problem for Facebook and Twitter and all the other platforms out there to deal with?

Those social media platforms do more to shape world opinion than any mere news outlet. They have more reach right into people's homes and brains, around the clock, than any newspaper or TV station has ever dreamed of having in the entire recorded history of world communication. If the Russians or anybody else are using those platforms to spread misinformation, shouldn't the platforms themselves do something about it?

Don't count on it. As long as people keep engaging with each other on Facebook, no matter how heated or divisive that engagement may be, it suits Facebook's economic model just fine. The more the merrier. The angrier the better. Division drives engagement.